The relationship between ownership and possession: observations from the context of digital virtual goods

Abstract

This theoretical article highlights limitations in the current trend towards dichotomizing full ownership and access-based consumption by recognizing a broader, more complex array of 'fragmented' 10 ownership configurations in the context of digital virtual goods (DVGs). In challenging this dichotomy, we recognise that the relationship between ownership and possession becomes particularly significant. We therefore consider how prominent DVG ownership configurations may shape the way in which possession is 15 assembled, potentially reducing consumers' scope of action relative to DVGs and leaving possession susceptible to disruption. Conversely, we acknowledge ways in which consumers' continued attempts at possession may impinge upon the agency of ownership mechanisms within the market. Our analysis ultimately builds 20 upon existing understandings of both ownership and possession, theorizing their often overlooked relation in consumption.ARTICLE HISTORY

The end of ownership?: An investigation of users' preferences and perceptions of ownership configurations

“…In this study, we adopted Watkins et al's () concept of fragmented ownership, and modified their framework of digital virtual goods ownership configurations. By drawing from Honoré (1961)'s classic incidents of ownership (including the right to possess and the right to manage), and breaking these categories down further into Watkin's framework, we were able to incorporate more specific ownership configurations (as shown in Table ).…”

“…Watkins et al () discussed ownership of digital virtual goods in depth, pointing out the problems with the dichotomy of ownership and access‐based consumption. Drawing from Attas (), they maintained that the ownership configurations of digital virtual goods are “fragmented” and “partial” (Watkins et al, , p. 45). They analyzed several prominent ownership configurations, including local created content, hosted content, non‐transferable license, and subscription‐based services, and provided a framework for empirical studies.…”

“…Clearly, not all property rights apply to digital content because of the complexity involved with intellectual properties. Watkins et al's () framework includes only three specific rights in the content dimension: the right to use, the right to transform, and the right to income. As to form, they use transferability (whether rights can be transferred to others) and continuity (the duration of the specific right) as two forms of the rights.…”

De‐ownership orientation and collaborative consumption during turbulent economic times

“…Ownership and possession practices have historically dominated the debate on consumer behavior and consumption (Bardhi & Eckhardt, ; Watkins, Denegri‐Knott, & Molesworth, ). In fact, in many modern societies, the concept of ownership is still very well‐rooted in people's minds, and for many, ownership is something that they aim and work for.…”

Do I Own It? U.S. and Chinese college students' digital ownership perceptions

“…Watkins, Denegri‐Knott, and Molesworth () pointed out that the relationship between psychological and legal ownership became very complex regarding digital virtual goods and was not adequately addressed, but their discussion of digital ownership mainly followed the legal ownership tradition, i.e., the bundle theory. They argued that users' possession of digital virtual goods cannot simply be explained by the dichotomy of access and ownership.…”